'Neither the guts to rule Iraq, nor the guts to quit'

The headline of this post - or something very like it - appeared on the front page of The Guardian, earlier this week. 'Neither the guts to rule nor the guts to quit' captures the current policy of Bush and Blair in Iraq. We're caught in some sort of no-man's land between doing something to reverse the escalating violence (partition and/ or extra troops, for example, as recommended by John McCain) or we should admit that we were never serious about Iraq and bring our troops home.

In today's Philip Geddes Memorial Lecture Matthew d'Ancona attempts to remind us all of the nature of our enemy - 20th century Islamic terrorism:

"At its heart is a terrible mutation of a great world religion: a ferocious system of ideas that seeks theocracy at any price, regards mass murder as divinely ordained and wills not only the destruction of Israel but the overthrow of modern Western society. As V.S. Naipaul warned before 9/11, in some parts of the world, “religion has been tuned by some into a kind of nihilism” by people who “are enraged at the world and wish to pull it down”. By definition, those who adhere to such ideas cannot be appeased."

D'Ancona goes on to argue that increasingly consumerist western democracies lack both the patience and resolve to see that our enemy has guessed that we don't have the stomach for the long fight that is necessary for victory. Here are some key extracts of the speech:

The time-frame of our enemy: "I was told
recently by a source who has had access to intercepted secret Hamas
documents, that they deal in timeframes of 50 and 100 years, measuring
their objectives in generations, not months or years."

The time-frame of the western democracies: "That
phrase [eye-catching initiatives], you will recall, was first used in
the hideously embarrassing Blair memo leaked six years ago. That was a
gruesome insight into the overwhelmingly tactical nature of much that
modern Government does – its quest for what Bill Clinton’s former
pollster, Dick Morris, calls the “daily mandate”... Truly, we now live
in Warhol’s world: it is no longer just people who enjoy 15 minutes of
fame, but Government initiatives, too."

The danger of a consumerist attitude to foreign policy: "Niall Ferguson has written brilliantly of the “American attention deficit”. I would go further and contend that citizenship and consumerism are now merging to the point that they are almost co-terminous. In our construction of narratives, we are used to the instant solutions of Hollywood, its distinctive grammar in which an answer is always found in 90 minutes. In our economic behaviour, we expect value for money, instantly. Nowadays, if you buy something and it doesn’t work, you take it back to the shop. If a website fails to deliver goods quickly enough, you don’t use it again. We are instinctively querulous rather than deferential. To borrow the distinction made famous by the American social scientist, Albert O. Hirschman, we are moving away from a culture of “voice and loyalty” to one of “exit”: when something does not work, we don’t stick around and complain. We just dump it... A foreign policy is not a retail product. A geopolitical strategy is not a consumer durable that you return in disgust immediately if it does not work straight away. This is the wrong model, the model in which there are only two options: instant gratification or instant rejection. The whole point of a strategy – perhaps its defining characteristic – is that you stick to it in spite of tactical setbacks. And this is an intrinsically difficult concept for which to argue at this point in Western history."

The war on terror is a long, grinding conflict: "As General Sir Rupert Smith argues in his masterpiece, The Utility of Force, modern conflicts are not trials of strength but battles of will. They are fought, as he puts it, “amongst the people.” As a result, he concludes, war in our time will tend to be “timeless” and open-ended, an ongoing activity of the state quite unlike the old industrial wars in which the whole of a society or state were subjugated to a single cause. Smith predicts long, grinding conflicts, in which the model is Cyprus, the Balkans or Northern Ireland rather than the Second World War or even the Falklands... In effect, the coalition’s policy in Iraq is now being treated in the media as if it were a listed FTSE company whose shares were in freefall as the customers – that is, Western publics – turned their back on the product. The model is wrong because – if we must stick with the market metaphor - the customer in this case is not only the Western voter. At the risk of sounding portentous, most of the customers are as yet unborn. The decisions that we takand do not take now in this struggle will affect the world for generations."

The speech is worth reading in full:Download Matthew_d'Ancona's_Geddes_Speech.pdf. It's a shame that our frontbench isn't making speeches like this - leading public opinion and increasing understanding of the nature of this 'age of terror'.

Comments

Very interesting stuff! In the grand scale of things this is far more important than whether the Conservative MEPs have inadvertently voted in favour of the Euro!! This is all about the future of the West and the threats to our security.

"The whole point of a strategy – perhaps its defining characteristic – is that you stick to it in spite of tactical setbacks"

I would argue though that the War on Terror's basic strategy of global transformation via military force is mistaken and needs changing. The fact is that the West is on the defensive, and the US strategy of trying to go on to the offensive against 'Terror' per se cannot possibly work. The US Global War on Terror is destabilising the world further and playing into Al Qaeda's hands.

Instead we need a defensive strategy for now, until we have formulated a coherent offensive strategy that offers a realistic hope of victory. We did this in the Cold War, and it worked. We can do it again.

"I do not
think this debate has been advanced an inch – not an inch – by the chorus of white
middle aged politicians telling Muslim women it is inappropriate to wear the veil. All
this achieves is to make such women the victim of two patriarchies, rather than one."

Interesting way of looking at this - we debated the subject not too long ago on CH so I'm not going to revisit - except to say that despite the fact I agreed with Jack Straw for perhaps the first time ever! - as a woman I can relate to D'Ancona's argument here as well.

Simon, the strategy has to include intervention in rogue states that sponsor terror. There were two mistakes in Iraq - the first a total underestimate of the costs involved, the numbers of troops and the necessary equipment to do the job. The second the loss of the chance to put the Iraqi Army on the payroll.

The USA and the UK and all other countries that wish to fight the war on terror will havew to build the capability to intervene in rogue states successfully. Defence spending must rise from the current paltry levels to around 6% of GDP. Numbers in the Army must be increased dramatically to around three times the current level, and equipment must be sourced on military priorities not on whether the EU needs jobs.

If we cannot intervene in rogue states, they will gladly support terrorist groups and provide them with the funds and kit they need to murder us. The problem is one of resources, not strategy. We cannot go to war on the cheap.

"It's a shame that our frontbench isn't making speeches like this - leading public opinion and increasing understanding of the nature of this 'age of terror'."

Larry at 17.53:
"If our frontbench started making speeches like this we could kiss goodbye to power for another generation".

Larry's view is probably true for all "nuts and bolts" debates but, once in a while, a deep and thoughful analysis of an intractable problem like Iraq might come over as being more statesmanlike - and responsible - than two side shouting at each other and trying to prove that black is white.

It is the US and Britain who have unleashed Islamic terrorism in Iraq - Saddam was basically a secular ruler - a tyrant of course, but he kept a lid on the extremists. Iraq had nothing to do with Al Queda, but it does now. The most misbegotten foreign policy by a British PM since Suez.

Absolutely Houndtang,unpalatable as it is for many neocons what you say is absolutely true.As desirable as ridding the world of Saddam Hussein is, he had very little to do with the 'War on Terror' (ie the fight against AL-QUEDA). I think history will not be kind to Bush or his advisors for this catastophic error.
Both America and Britain will fight long term wars if the feel they have to so I don't buy D'anconas theory.The Iraq war has lasted nearly as long as the WW1.The Americans were in Vietman for 15 years,our troops fought the IRA for almost 25.Both the USA and Britain stood up to the communist menace for over 40 years. We will defend our interests when we have to for as long as it takes.As has been obvious to all but the most one eyed neocon for some time Iraq never threatened our interests.
Our troops are there now purely to maintain the prestige of our political leaders.Is that a good enough reason?

Don't know how many of you out there have had a chance to read Mark Steyn's new book (why did he have to leave The Spectator at the start of d'Ancona's reign?) but the point d'Ancona makes is similar to the theme of Mark's book: its not so much that Islamists greatly threaten us in the West today, but that in 50 or even 25 years time the demographics in many western nations will favour their line of argument - and attack - that much more so.

One particular stat that sticks in the mind: in 1970 the developed nations of the world had a 30% to 15% edge over the Muslim world in terms of population; by 2000 it was equal at 20% each. I chalk it up to political correctness that nobody talks about this huge shift - and where we talk about the sea level rising by a couple of inches over a century as grave danger to us all instead.

James is correct that demographics is at the heart of Islamist '4th generation' warfare. Demographics within the West are particularly important - the Islamists seek to create a sufficiently large, sufficiently radicalised Muslim population within the western states that they can eventually tear those states apart from within. Terrorism as such is only one part of this "Armalite and ballot box" strategy. In fact manipulating the Western response to what are relatively limited Terror threats is an important factor itself.

As far as I can see, current US & Western foreign policy is doing nothing to counter this strategy, quite the reverse. Attacking Afghanistan was justified after 9/11 because it was a clear viable target, but the idea that a general policy of attacking 'rogue states' can turn 100 million or so radicalised Islamists into liberal democrats is sheer folly. Worse, it converts more and more of the other 1.2 billion Muslims into our enemies.

For some good sense on this area from someone who was predicting the outlines way back in 1989, I recommend Bill Lind's "On War" columns:

"I do not
think this debate has been advanced an inch – not an inch – by the chorus of white
middle aged politicians telling Muslim women it is inappropriate to wear the veil. All
this achieves is to make such women the victim of two patriarchies, rather than one."

Interesting way of looking at this - we debated the subject not too long ago on CH so I'm not going to revisit - except to say that despite the fact I agreed with Jack Straw for perhaps the first time ever! - as a woman I can relate to D'Ancona's argument here as well."

If you think Muslim women are forced by their menfolk to wear burka & niqab against their will, that would be a very strong argument for banning them. If they are chosing to wear them as a political statement, they're not victims. You can't have it both ways.

Simon I absolutely take your point and it is very difficult to determine which way to go on this point - bit of a dilemma, I think!
I have always been a "gut instinct" politican and my instinct tells me to go with the latter part of your suggestion. I believe that many, if not most, certainly of the younger women who cover their faces are most certainly doing so as a political statement and are therefore as you rightly say not victims. Therefore I believe I have to reject D'Ancona's argument, interesting though it is!

The aim has to be to work with the new Iraqi Authorities to cover the gaps in their new Security Structure and help them build it up - if they ask coalition forces to leave then they should leave, but at the moment they want coalition forces to remain. Indeed Coalition Forces should be considered to include Iraqi Forces - maybe consideration should be given to offering NATO membership to the new Iraq as part of strengthening relations with the new authorities.

If Iraq chooses to breakup then equally this would be their choice and the US and UK and other coalition members should then seek to work with the new states to protect them from countries such as Syria, Turkey and Iran - possibly bringing them into security organisations such as NATO.

On the other hand, Coalition Forces are not ruling Iraq and if they sought to do so then it would be difficult to see how they would ever leave, focus has to be on areas with local problems and on leaving areas of Iraq under strong control of Iraqi Security Forces to the control of the Iraqi authorities.

D'Ancona is an idiot. Even the digitally enhanced photo of this pudgy, ugly, troll tells a whopping lie.

The man backed the Iraq War, but for all the wrong reasons. I stopped my sub to the Speccie when he became editor.

Now turn to Con Coughlin's masterful analysis in today's Telegraph "How the Neo-cons lost the war" to read the verdict of a "hawk" (or at any rate a former "hawk") who actually knows what he's talking about.

D'Ancona's speech is superb. Almost perfect in fact. The only point I found to disagree strongly with was his view that Turkey must join the EU 'to stand shoulder to shoulder with the countries of Christendom'.

The EU shows no sign of standing shoulder to shoulder with its own interests or with America so why should admitting a Muslim country fighting a losing battle against Islamism improve our security?

In fact, given what Matthew says about taking the long view, isn't it insanity to pretend that Turkey's democracy will resist the challenge posed to it by sharia in the long-term?

The EU now faces precisely the same choice as the inhabitants of Troy had when they awoke to find a huge wooden gift outside their gates and no visible sign of their enemy.

D'Ancona's speech is superb. Almost perfect in fact. The only point I found to disagree strongly with was his view that Turkey must join the EU 'to stand shoulder to shoulder with the countries of Christendom'.

Isn't that a bit like saying that Hitler was a fantastic artist marred only by some strange ideas about the Jews?

Perhaps doubly so, given that the journalistic abilities of Daniel "Maggie's backing Portillo" D'Ancona are about as distinguished as A Hitler's feeble attempts at art.

I don't understand your comment Stuart, I'm afraid. The PDF is forty pages long and there are a number of ideas in it. Most importantly it contains a number of contibutions that actually attempt to take us beyond the sort of despair and fingerpointing to be found in Con Coughlin's piece. Thank you for introducing the Hitler analogy though. You add to the debate immeasurably.

Re the Hijab or Niqab. Some of it is a family thing. I visited families where all the women were shrouded, next door to ones which were not. Also true that very patriarchal families have to bow the knee to father, and do what he says, including voting! It follows that said father will import a "suitable"husband for his daughters, and woe betide them if they disobey.This cuts across all age groups, and is strongest in very "ghettoised" communities. These folk are British, a very bad second.
On another topic, b ut related, has anyone ever read Nostradamus? One of his texts says that a major threat will be "the yellow men from the east" once these people have been defeated, there will be "a thousand years of peace." OK, Hokum, but take a sneaky look at what is happening now! East? Middle East?? HO HUM!

The non stop media barrage, from particularly the Al-Beeb, against the War doesn't help one bit and that is driven by a hatred of a Republican President, rather than any genuine concern about whether we are right to be fighting against terrorists.

When Clinton was bombing Yugoslavia, without any UN mandate there was barely a peep of complaint.

Also the Iraqi government wants us there, a fact that the anti war crowd seem very unwilling to acknowledge.

"When Clinton was bombing Yugoslavia, without any UN mandate there was barely a peep of complaint."

That the BBC is against something doesn't necessarily make it right. OTOH, the BBC's eagerness to see NATO dropping bombs on Serbs shows that the Left is not averse to aggression against those they deem worthy of destruction; the 'Israel has forfeited its right to exist' stuff during the recent Lebanon war was telling. Personally I'm increasingly sceptical of progressive interventionism, whether left-liberal or neocon. This claimed right to drop bombs on people not in self defense, but because we've deemed them the bad guys, is a luxury I don't think we can afford much longer.

Both malcolm and houndtang: RE Saddam was a secularist and not a jihadi.

Saddam funded terror attacks in Kurdistan through Ansar al-Islam. He used jihadi Kurds because he couldn't reach Kurdistan with his regular military effectively or consistently. Ansar al-Islam was dependable.

After getting treatment at a Baghdad hospital for his injuries Abu Musab al Zarqawi (freelance Jordanian terrorist and sometime Al-Qaeda associate) went to the north and hooked up with Ansar al-Islam. He brought his own people in from southern Afghanistan and started Ansar al-Sunna (A.K.A. Al-Qaeda in Iraq) and later folded elements of Ansar al-Islam, Saddam Fedayeen and other unaffiliated but local terror operatives into his broad coalition the Mujahadin Council.

In the early 90's Saddam sent money to Abu Sayyef in East Asia, but stopped doing this for fear of being caught as soon as the FBI showed up after the Ramsi Yusef apartment fire that exposed the Bojinka Plot. Abu Sayyef is also connected to Usama Bin Laden through training, funding, and marriage.

In the early and mid-90's Saddam reached out to Usama in Sudan through the Sudanese govt. and through his own Intelligence apparatus. Tentative agreements were made to pursue futher relations as time went on, but both sides were nervous. Later in the late 90's after Al-Qaeda had moved to Afghanistan Saddam made connections with elements of the Taliban seeking a stronger relationship with Al-Qaeda though his efforts recieved some pushback from the Pakistani ISI who ran the Taliban. He didn't cease the courtship, but did cool it for awhile.

While there is no definitive proof of Saddam's involvement in 9-11 there is some scattered circumstantial evidence. It isn't proof, it's just evidence. But there is no doubt about the Salman Pak terror training camp both pre and post invasion and through evidence aquired in interrogations of Al-Qaeda detainees and in documents captured in raids outside of Iraq.

Bottom line: Saddam funded terror, gave refuge to terrorists, allowed terror training and operations bases to exist in Iraq, sheltered known and wanted international terrorists and allowed them to run command and control HQs in Baghdad, he consistently demonstrated his desire to engage in a working relationship with terrorists, and his other "sins" were legion and horrifying. He was a part of the War on Terror, his deposition and replacement with a representative government aimed at serving the Iraqi people instead of enslaving the Iraqis is good for everyone, and in ten to twelve years people will see the wisdom of this war. I see it now, but it may take others longer.

Chin up lads. It's tough going now, but the fight's just begun. It's only going to get harder after this. I guarantee.

Apologist,I don't know who you are or where you get your information from.I do know however that despite the best efforts of the US and Britain no link has been proved between Saddam Hussein and AL-QUEDA.
I do agree with you that 'war on terror' still has a long way to run but the unnecessary side show of a war in Iraq has seriously sapped the will and the military strengh of both Britain ,the US and NATO to the detriment of the 'war on terror'.